CONFIDENTIAL
they could not get the proposal through Parliament
(the Order in Council would need an affirmative
resolution by both Houses) without substantial
difficulty. I have also taken the matter up at
Under Secretary level in the Home Office (who are
responsible for extradition) but have got the same
reply. The grounds of objection are that, what-
ever we say, the Order would be interpreted as
intended to catch one man. Its retrospective
effect, which is itself open to objection, would
reinforce this impression. Second the Home Office
argue that the double criminality rule was delibe-
rately applied in 1967 to the dependent territories!
as well as independent Commonwealth countries,
because, whatever the formal position about British
control, the law to be applied in these special
cases would, ipso facto, be different from our own.
If the return of somebody like Godber was sought
for something which we do not here regard as a
crime, this would lead to outcries in this
country about the liberty of the individual.
Flowing from this, the fact that Section 10 of the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does cut across
fairly fundamental rules of law in this country,
is an additional reason for not changing the
Fugitive Offenders Act in the particular context
of a man charged under this section.
3.
We have put the opposite point; that it is
not a question of changing the law to catch one
but rather of the case of Mr Godber illumi-
nating an illogicality in the law which should now
/be changed
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Page 15Page 16
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN